The polarization of our politics has had an interesting unintended consequence: A news source that doesn’t parrot your point of view is considered biased.

Of course, this doesn’t mean the news source IS biased, but it gets that label because when you’re a partisan engaged in a battle over ideas, it is all about tearing down and doing damage to the credibility of perceived opposition.

Case in point is the venerable Associated Press, a news source since 1848. It amazes me to see charges of bias hurled at this newsgathering organization for simply reporting the news in as straightforward a method as humanly possible.

Until recent years, I never heard criticism of the AP’s reporting. In fact, it is known for its “just the facts” style of presenting the news.

But here’s what I’ve been hearing lately from critics:

An Mlive.com post by parkyourbike: “The most frustrating part of reading a newspaper article is finding out later (from) other media outlets, that there was a completely other side to the story that was never written. The Associated Press is famous for this. Journalism by omission. That is what I would like not just your paper, but all newspapers, to try to do. No agenda, just the facts, sir. Just the facts.”

An Mlive.com post by mydogs: “Talk about biased — How about what (the AP) chooses to omit, not report and the facts they simply edit? How rapidly did they respond and report on the ACORN issues, the so-called global warming? How is it that they were critical of every guffaw Bush made, but let slip the Obamas gaffes — giving the Queen an iPod, CDs to the PM, bowing to kings — very little was made of these plus the many others.”

An Mlive.com post by dakota: “If anyone puts a spin on the stories, it is the AP.”

Now I can understand conservatives taking a shot at news sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc., for liberal leanings. I’d say that is clearly true — on their editorial pages, where opinion belongs. On the news pages, however, history shows some great and objective reporting has come from these newspapers.

The AP is a different, and perhaps misunderstood, animal. The AP doesn’t take the political stands that most newspapers do. It has no editorial pages.

For more than 160 years, it has provided news and some analysis to such a diverse political range of newspaper clients (newspapers formed the AP as a cooperative to cover the Mexican war more economically) that it had to play it straight to stay in business. The arch-conservative publisher Robert McCormick in Chicago had to be satisfied, as did publishers with more liberal views. The AP could not afford to take sides and it still can’t today.

What really concerns me, though, is that throwing stones at the AP speaks to a new intolerance to hear varied points of view. AP tells all sides and some readers only want to read one side.

Once, those consuming news wanted to be told everything — even if it was something they might disagree with. Nowadays, it seems many people only want to read what they already agree with.

That’s a shame.

My experience is that AP works hard to tell the whole story and insists on verifiable facts, not opinion or spin. It doesn’t have a dog in the fight, so to speak.

That allows it to be truly objective and informative. Not as splashy as trying to whip up partisans on the right or on the left as the prime-time TV opinion shows do, but a real public service.

I would go so far as to say that if you were to look at all of the different newsgathering organizations (I’m talking about the ones that actually do original reporting and not the ones that simply react or spin what others have reported), the AP is the most consistently objective in its reporting. I think that’s what we want from our news sources: the facts as soon as we can get them confirmed.

Opinion has its place, but let’s not confuse news reporting with commenting on the news. They are two different things. Or at least they should be.